Dear Eckard and Steve Agnew thanks for your comments.
Steve,
In my opinion your comment is not economical in the use of terminology, but thanks for your diagram, (polarizationEllipsoidSagnac.jpg), I think we can reach some sort of agreement after discussing. You also say the following and I quote, "Translational frames are Lorentz invariant by MEE whereas rotational frames carry angular momentum and therefore show polarization shifts...",
"Since a circularly polarized photon represents a longitudinal phase coherence, polarization phase coherence becomes especially important in rotating frames"
"I thought that next you would create an interferometer on a rotating table and so on,..."
In more economical language, you agree that arrival times does change and will be affected by disc rotation with blue or red-shifted time pulse depending on the direction pulse was travelling relative to the detector mounted on the disc.
But you fail to realize that for a detector, R on an interferometer mounted at a point on the equator, the earth also represents a rotating turntable, and none at all of the effects you mentioned, viz. differences in arrival times; polarization shifts due to earth's angular momentum were observed in Michelson-Morley type experiments. This is what led Einstein to say that his theory is based on the observation that experiments have shown that electromagnetic and optical phenomena, relatively to the earth as the body of reference are not influenced by earth motion. However, Sagnac found that in his own experiment optical phenomena are influenced by the disc's rotation in contradiction to what Michelson found. Both findings are accurate and must be theoretically reconciled.
Eckard,
I would not and I am not forcing you to agree to a dragged along aether as you suggest. You will force yourself to agree to something similar when you confront the scenarios. In your reply on Sep. 26, 2015 @ 20:54 GMT, you agreed that, " the signal from S1 will arrive at Mr R first", because the disc rotates clockwise and moves toward the initial position of S1. In Michelson's experiments dating from 1881, the signal refused to arrive at Mr R first, instead both signals S1 and S2 always arrive at the same time. This unexpected finding is the basis of what led to the Special theory of relativity and its postulate that no matter how Mr R is moving the signals will always reach him at the same time as if he was stationary and not moving.
However, in 1913 using another disc, this time rotating relative to the earth, Sagnac found that the signal from S1 arrived at R first. Earth is a disc rotating at 465m/s, why was there no time difference in arrival between signals from S1 and S2, with S1, S2 and R all mounted on earth surface? I invite you to reconcile both findings making economical use of physics and math terms. How to do this reconciliation without absurdity has been the central dilemma in physics for over 100 years unknown to many, even among Einstein's followers.
Regards,
Akinbo
